The proposal to create the 29th state of India, Telangana, from the current Andhra Pradesh state was ratified by the Congress Working Committee in July 2013. Though the roots of this devolution are political in nature—that is, the fulfillment of a campaign promise—the identity of those agitating for Telangana have roots in a shared history, geography and economic circumstance.
THE PROPOSAL to mutate the borders of Andhra Pradesh follows a long history of reorganisation of state boundaries in India. The first major round began with the appointment of the State Reorganisation Commission in 1953, which (in 1956) effectively segmented much of India on linguistic lines. Thus, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan, among other states, were created on a linguistic basis. More importantly, the commission also had the effect of combining the erstwhile Hyderabad under the Nizam (modern day Telangana) with the coastal Andhra region (now referred to as Seemandhra) since both the regions spoke the same language (Telugu). Because of the simmering distrust for the merger within the Telangana region, Nehru disapproved of the merger; he called it a “tint in expansionist imperialism”. Soon after, language became less of a reason to break up (or merge) states as difficulties of excessive size and population took precedent in the creation of Chhattisgarh (2000) and Jharkhand (2000) from Madhya Pradesh and Bihar respectively.
The existence of such centuries-old social cleavages in Andhra Pradesh is quite evident amidst the current round of celebrations or protests, on either side of the political divide. Telangana has two key factors that render it a distinct sociopolitical entity. The first is its history. As the success of Telangana Rashtra Samiti (political party) shows, the Nizam’s former kingdom still considers itself a distinct community with a separate history from Seemandhra, which was directly colonised by the British (and thus has a varied history of administration). Secondly, the general lead in educational and economic attainments by the Seemandhra region over the Telangana has further exacerbated the cleavages because of claims of bias in government and industrial opportunities. In fact, journalist Chandrashekhar Rao has claimed that the bias most exhibits in the Telugu film industry, where by protagonists speak the Andhra dialect and the villains speak the Telangana dialect.
SANJEER ALAM// Though one may or may not choose to agree with the need for smaller states or the breaking up of the larger states, whose populations often rival that of entire nations, the Centre’s approach towards the partition of Andhra Pradesh is condemnable and extremely unhealthy in the long-term. The issue here is not so much the creation of a new state, but its timing, its uses and what such a precedent portends for the future.
Ideally the redrawing of state boundaries should be left to non-political commissions, who would do a good job of surveying ground opinion and holistically assessing the economic, political and social factors. This was done in an excellent manner back in 1956, when a States Reorganisation Commission led to the States Reorganisation Act. The latter linguistically aligned populations and in the process quelled much of dissent in the newly independent India. Its stabilising effect can be felt till this day. However, it is clear that politics underpins UPA’s division of Andhra Pradesh. UPA, and in particular, the INC look for political dividends they may receive, from the region that supplies most of their MPs, if they accede to the Telangana demand. This should also help in reviving the fortunes of a party whose reputation, thanks to low growth and a slew of corruption scandals, is at an all time low. But such important decision made solely for scoring political points has consequences.
The first is that the UPA now has no basis or criteria to mediate other demands for regional autonomy. It performed little formal analysis of the consequences or causes of partition, unlike the States’ Reorganisation Commission of 1956. The sole basis was the political gain from Telangana. This sends the wrong signal to other movements for regional autonomy, and may lead to political instability as other movements decide to opt for more drastic measures than simple agitation. Why? Because they may conclude that arm-twisting the government is the only way to gain attention and results. Given the indefinite bandh in Darjeeling, the state of the movement for Gorkhaland points towards such behaviour.
Second, since such a decision has been taken mostly for political purposes, without any institutions or structures for the mediation and examination of the demands for autonomy, it is likely to lead to political reprisals. In other words, one may expect repeated bandhs in Darjeeling or forcible removal of those from Andhra Pradesh from the city of Hyderabad. If the local administration is not careful—which it often is not when it comes political mobilisation for local causes—such a situation could degenerate into ugly mobs rioting. Indeed, the partition of Andhra Pradesh is fairly analogous to the partition of India.
And lastly, the manner of Telangana’s creation has set a dangerous precedent for other political parties. The issue of carving up new states should have been in the domain of autonomous and politically neutral bodies like some Boards or Commissions. But with the decision of the Congress, the question of new states has been thoroughly politicised. Parties shall now make this issue a bait during election time. And this may make the advent of non-political decision-making all the more difficult. Mohd. Sanjeer Alam is trained in social geography and social demography from the Centre for the Study of Regional Development (CSRD), Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, from where he received his Ph.D in 2005. He joined Lokniti/ CSDS towards the end of 2005.
BG VERGHESE// Let us look at the statistics; in this Telangana issue the key political players are expected to be Indian National Congress, Telangana Rashtra Samiti, and All Indian Majlis-e-Itehaad-ul Muslimeen (mostly focused around Hyderabad area). Hyderabad, responsible for service exports worth `59,000 crore yearly, shall be shared by the both the states as the capital for the next 10 years. According to the current estimates, gross domestic product for Andhra Pradesh is around `6.7 lakh crore. If Telangana were to eventually gain total control over Hyderabad and adjoining area (since it lies within its territory), then it shall understandably get the lion’s share of both the GDP and the revenue. India with a population of over 1.2 billion, has 28 states, whereas the United States with a population of 300 million has 50 states. This means that many states, in terms of population, in India are larger than entire nations. In fact, the population of most large states in India is larger than that of France, whereas Uttar Pradesh’s population trumps Brazil’s. This shows in the massively skewed constituents to MP ratio, whereby in India a Member of Parliament from the Lower House represents up to 2,000,000 constituents as opposed to 60,000 in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, the first argument for any direction towards smaller units of administration has to rest on administrative efficiency itself. Smaller states make governance more participatory and more manageable. Let me give you an example. In my career as a journalist and an adviser to politicians, I was often told by Chief Secretaries and top bureaucrats of large states like Maharashtra that it was virtually impossible for them to seriously monitor all the districts (because of their sheer number) in a span of five years. Thus, no effective work could get done in one-term.
In this respect, the division of Andhra Pradesh, which has a population of 85 million— well over Germany’s population—is a step in the right direction. It shall allow the local schemes to be more fine-tuned to local conditions, whereas the top bureaucrats can (with almost half the workload) achieve something of significance.
Secondly, in a country as plural and culturally diverse as India, all sorts of identities, be they constructed around a language, geography or a shared past, must be respected. Therefore, the people of Telangana have every right to demand autonomy on the basis of a shared past. Indeed, I feel this should, through a nonpolitical commission, be extended to many other regions of the country— including, Gorkhaland, Vidarbha and maybe Saurashtra.
Moreover, the cost argument—that forming a new state bolsters gratuitous expenditure because it leads to the creation of new cities—is a facetious one. India is a rapidly urbanising nation and faces immense shortage of infrastructure. The amount spent on building more cities would have been spent anyway (on other infrastructure projects). Additionally, India needs more cities to ensure that development does not get restricted to a handful of urban conglomerations.
Some also say that creation of more states may lead to disputes over river basins. But I don’t see why this cannot be managed by autonomous but centrally sponsored institutionalised structures of political negotiation. In fact, provisions for such measures exist in the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. Zonal Councils (which have largely been forgotten today) were set up to ensure cooperation amongst states on matters of resource-sharing, culture and language, amongst other things.
Finally, with respect to the question of missed economic opportunity for those left out of Hyderabad in the longrun, the partition of the state in no way prevents those living in Seemandhra from benefiting off Hyderabad through rental income, jobs or investment. India is a free country, you are welcome to settle wherever you like.